Gordon S Watson - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Drafts by Gordon S Watson

, on the horns of a dilemma. "I cannot say that action at a distance (AAD) is required in physics... more , on the horns of a dilemma. "I cannot say that action at a distance (AAD) is required in physics. But I can say that you cannot get away with no AAD. ... that is the dilemma. We are led by analyzing this situation to admit that in somehow distant things are connected, or at least not disconnected. ... Now, it's my feeling that all this AAD and no AAD business will go the same way [as the ether]. ... someone will come up with the answer, with a reasonable way of looking at these things. If we are lucky it will be to some big new development like the theory of relativity. Maybe someone will just point out that we were being rather silly, ... But anyway, I believe the questions will be resolved. ... Somebody will find a way of saying that relativity and quantum mechanics (QM) are compatible," after Bell (1990:82-86) in the year of his passing.

Responding to Terence Tao's note, "Bell's inequality [BI]: Some experimentally verified predictio... more Responding to Terence Tao's note, "Bell's inequality [BI]: Some experimentally verified predictions of quantum mechanics are incompatible with any classical local explanation," we reveal BI's irrefutable sibling WI (Watson's inequality) in a classical local way. Then, with WI naturally at home in classical and quantum mechanics (QM), we dismiss BI by showing it everywhere false in a substantial sample. And by not coupling beables from different instances to create non-equalities (like Bell), we avoid Bell's instance-busting (IB) errors. We then refute Bell's famous theorem via classical local explanations: thus making the corresponding quantum correlations intelligible, as Einstein wanted. Our consequent Commonsense Quantum Theory (CQT) accommodates the following principles coherently (and without the usual Bellian contradictions): locality, reality, separability, completeness, perfect correlations, physical systems have intrinsic properties, and tests (aka measurements) may be perturbative. Also, under explicit local causality: "if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then local elements of physical reality determine that value of that quantity." We demonstrate this determinism via the two-particle Bohm-Aharonov experiment in Bell (1964) and the three-particle Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger experiment in Mermin (1990). Against nonlocality, CQT delivers local beables that resolve Bell's 1990 action-at-a-distance dilemma. Via its local realism and the Riesz-Fejér theorem, CQT will also bring further classical explanations to QM. Let's see.

In a nutshell, this is Bell's theorem: No locally causal theory can produce the predictions of qu... more In a nutshell, this is Bell's theorem: No locally causal theory can produce the predictions of quantum mechanics. Against this, and bound by the axioms of locality, completeness, true realism, and free choice: we refute Bell's theorem and his related inequality. We also reveal his error. It follows that Einstein and locality prevail: the physical world is locally causal. We thus advance Einstein's quest to make quantum mechanics intelligible in a classical way.

In our terms, this is Bell's 1964 theorem, 'No local hidden-variable theory can reproduce exactly... more In our terms, this is Bell's 1964 theorem, 'No local hidden-variable theory can reproduce exactly the quantum mechanical predictions.' Against this, and bound by what Bell takes to be Einstein's definition of locality, we refute Bell's theorem and reveal his error. We show that Einstein was right: the physical world is local; and we advance Einstein's quest to make quantum mechanics intelligible in a classical way. With respect to understanding, and taking mathematics to be the best logic, the author is as close as an email.

Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science, one of the few essen... more Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science, one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics. However, allowing that elementary probability theory and relativistic-causality provide an adequate logic here: we refute Bell's theorem and Bell's inequality; we identify and correct Bell's error. Thus, against Bell's ‘impossibility' theorem, we find ‘a more complete specification' that Bell missed.

Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science, one of the few essen... more Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science, one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics, indecipherable to non-mathematicians. Against such claims, however-and taking elementary probability theory to be an adequate logic here-we refute Bell's theorem, and his inequality/proof, as we identify and correct Bell's error. Let's see.

Papers by Gordon S Watson

With Zeilinger (2011:194), “We do not assume the preexistence of observed values.” Instead, we wo... more With Zeilinger (2011:194), “We do not assume the preexistence of observed values.” Instead, we work with commonsense local realism (CLR). CLR is the union of commonsense local causality (no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein) and commonsense physical realism (some existents change interactively, after Bohr).
With these principles, and fully agreeing with QM, we use Bell’s initial statistical formulation to derive the expectation for the much-studied experiment in Bell (1964). So, since Bell’s famous “impossibility” theorem (BT) declares our result impossible, our successful derivation refutes BT directly and irrefutably.
Then, since Bell’s famous inequality (BI) is the basis for BT, we refute BI similarly. Taking math to be the best logic and letting it do most of the talking, we show that BI is a consequence of Bell’s erroneous instance-busting: Bell busts instances to create new instances and (thus) false expectation values. So, since these expectations are clearly incorrect, BI and Bell’s instance-busting are refuted.
Finally, CLR delivers the “big new development” that Bell expected. Correcting the elementary (but critical) defects in Bell’s analysis, CLR leads to a commonsense quantum theory (CQT), with Bell’s AAD dilemma resolved. CQT thus shows that relativity and QM are compatible.

viXra, 2020

Bell’s theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science. Let’s see. Introduct... more Bell’s theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science. Let’s see. Introduction: Let β denote Bohm’s experiment in Bell (1964); let B(.) denote Bell’s equation (.); let A± and B± be the causally-independent same-instance results in B(1), pairwise correlated via λ and functions A, B. Then, reserving P for probabilities, replace Bell’s expectation P(~a,~b) in B(2) with its identity E(a,b |β ). So, from B(1), B(2), RHS B(3) and the line below it—with Λ denoting the space of λ—here’s Bell’s 1964 theorem (BT1) in our notation: BT1: E(a,b |β ) = ∫Λdλ ρ(λ )A(a,λ )B(b,λ ) 6=−a·b [sic]: (1) with A(a,λ ) =±1≡ A±, B(b,λ ) =∓1≡ B∓, A(a,λ )B(b,λ ) =±1. (2) Refutation: LHS (1) is a standard definition of an expectation. So, under relativistic causality and functions (A,B) satisfying (2) and LHS (1): let Λ+ be the sub-space that delivers A(a,λ )B(b,λ ) = 1; then the remainder Λ− delivers A(a,λ )B(b,λ ) =−1. So, from (1): E(a,b|β ) = ∫ Λ+ dλ ρ(λ )A(a,λ )B(b,λ )+ ∫ Λ− dλ ρ(λ )A(...

FQXi 2014 asks, 'How should humanity steer the future?' Recalling false obstacles to medical prog... more FQXi 2014 asks, 'How should humanity steer the future?' Recalling false obstacles to medical progress in humanity's recent past-eg, impeding Semmelweis (b.1818), McClintock (1902), Marshall (1951)-we reply, 'Steer by Logic.' Then-with Logic in view and other scientific disciplines in mind-we amplify our answer via an online coaching-clinic/challenge based on Einstein's work. With the future mostly physical, this physics-based challenge shows how we best steer clear of false obstacles-unnecessary barriers that slow humanity's progress. Hoping to motivate others to participate, here's our position: we locate current peer-reviewed claims of 'impossible'-like those from days of old-and we challenge them via refutations and experimental verifications. The case-study identifies an academic tradition replete with 'impossibilityproofs'-with this bonus: many such 'proofs' are challengeable via undergraduate maths and logic. So-at the core of this clinic/challenge; taking maths to be the best logic-we model each situation in agreed mathematical terms, then refute each obstacle in like terms. Of course, upon finding 'impossibilities' that are contradicted by experiments, our next stride is easy: at least one step in such analyses must be false. So-applying old-fashioned commonsense; ie, experimentally verifiable Logic-we find that false step and correct it. With reputable experiments agreeing with our corrections, we thus negate the false obstacles. Graduates of the clinic can therefore more confidently engage in steering our common future: secure in the knowledge that old-fashioned commonsense-genuine Logic-steers well.

Commonsense local realism (CLR) is the fusion of local-causality (no causal influence propagates ... more Commonsense local realism (CLR) is the fusion of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). Advancing our case for a local realistic quantum mechanics based solely on CLR, we use undergraduate maths and a single unifying thought-experiment (experiment Q) to jointly factor the quantum-entanglements in EPRB and Aspect (2002). Such CLR base-factors (one factor based solely on beables in Alice's domain, the other factor based solely on beables in Bob's domain), refute Bell's theorem and eliminate the need for 't Hooft's superdeterminism.

With Bell (1964) and his EPR-based analysis contradicted by experiments, at least one step in his... more With Bell (1964) and his EPR-based analysis contradicted by experiments, at least one step in his supposedly commonsense theorem must be false. Using commonsense local realism-the fusion of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively)we make EPR correlations intelligible by completing the quantum mechanical account in a classical way. Thus refuting the false inequality at the heart of Bell's analysis and the false equality at its core, we reinforce the classical mantra-that correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results-without mystery. We conclude that Bell's theorem and all related experiments negate naive realism, not commonsense local realism: Einstein's reasonable thing works. 1 Notes to the Reader 'In the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of presentation,' Einstein (1916). May this essay bring you many happy hours of fun and critical thinking. a. Pre-reading: EPR and Bell (1964), available on-line, are taken as read; EPR to the start of page 778, Bell to his equation (15). Other texts are also available via hyperlinks in References B. b. Terms/notation: See Appendix A. (u, v) = angle between vectors u, v; u•v = inner product. c. Results: Requiring no loopholes, all results here accord with reputable experimental findings.

Summarizing Bell (1990:82-85), "I cannot say that action at a distance is required in physics. I ... more Summarizing Bell (1990:82-85), "I cannot say that action at a distance is required in physics. I can say that you cannot get away with no action at a distance. That is the dilemma. However, I feel this business will go the same way as the ether. Someone will come up with the answer, with a reasonable way of looking at these things: perhaps showing that we were being rather silly. If we are lucky, it will be to a big new development like the theory of relativity." Indeed. By applying elementary algebra to facts supplied by Bell, we reveal silly errors, refute his inequality and demolish the formal proof of his theorem. Then, going beyond elementary algebra, Watson (2023G) disproves Bell's theorem (BT) and its core claim that an elementary mathematical relation is impossible. It thus refutes BT in the classical way that Einstein favored. Akin to Bell's 1990 hope for a new development in physics, the outcome is our commonsense quantum theory (CQT). With Bell on our side and Bell (1964) at our side, let's see.

Responding to Terence Tao's note, “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s\_theorem||Bell’s inequa... more Responding to Terence Tao's note, “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem||Bell’s inequality] [BI]: Some experimentally verified predictions of quantum mechanics are incompatible with any classical local explanation,” we reveal BI's irrefutable sibling WI (Watson's inequality) in a classical local way. Then, with WI naturally at home in classical and quantum mechanics (QM), we dismiss BI by showing it everywhere false in a substantial sample. And by not coupling beables from different instances to create non-equalities (like Bell), we avoid Bell's instance-busting (IB) errors. We then refute Bell's famous theorem via classical local explanations: thus making the corresponding quantum correlations intelligible, as Einstein wanted. Our consequent Commonsense Quantum Theory (CQT) accommodates the following principles coherently (and without the usual Bellian contradictions): locality, reality, separability, completeness, perfect correlations, physical systems have intrinsic properties, and tests (aka measurements) may be perturbative. Also, under explicit local causality: “if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then local elements of physical reality determine that value of that quantity.” We demonstrate this determinism via the two-particle Bohm-Aharonov experiment in Bell (1964) and the three-particle Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger experiment in Mermin (1990). Against nonlocality, CQT delivers local beables that resolve Bell's 1990 action-at-a-distance dilemma. Via its local realism and the Riesz-Fejér theorem, CQT will also bring further classical explanations to QM. Let's see.

Let John Bell and I talk in June 1989; two 'realists' seeking EPR 'beables' together. Under EPR's... more Let John Bell and I talk in June 1989; two 'realists' seeking EPR 'beables' together. Under EPR's criteria -- with my emphasis on the use of natural beables -- we refute Bell's famous 'not possible' theorem; see his (1964:196). For, with certainty: we see that Bell 1964:(1)-(3) -- the crux of his theorem -- reproduces the QM predictions precisely. With his action-at-a-distance dilemma thereby resolved -- as we now show -- Bell endorses EPR!

In a technical report under the auspices of The Nobel Committee for Physics, dated 4 October 2022... more In a technical report under the auspices of The Nobel Committee for Physics, dated 4 October 2022, we find these claims: (i) Bell's first inequality was a spectacular theoretical discovery; (ii) Bell showed mathematically that no hidden variable theory would be able to reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics; (iii) Bell showed that all attempts to construct a local realist model of quantum phenomena are doomed to fail. Against such claims, and focussing on EPR's criteria, this personal note shows: (i) that all such claims are flawed; (ii) that Bell's theorem and Bell's inequality fall to straightforward considerations; (iii) that consequently, for their part in proving that EPR were right: we are indebted to those who develop the sources; hopefully en route to wholistic mechanics –– a commonsense quantum mechanics –– as we celebrate the birth of Olivier Costa de Beauregard, 111 years ago, 19111106, Paris. [This paper is a prelude to Watson (forthcoming): “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.” There, under EPR's criteria and avoiding Bell's errors, Bell's 1964 Eqs.1-3 are shown to lead to the correct quantum mechanical results. In this way, we refute Bell's theorem directly on Bell's terms.]

Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science, one of the few essen... more Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science, one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics, indecipherable to non-mathematicians. Against such claims, however-and taking elementary probability theory to be an adequate logic here-we refute Bell's theorem, and his inequality/proof, as we identify and correct Bell's error. Let's see.

viXra, 2020